Religion has only ever been a means to control the masses. Nothing else. It therefore playes a major

You are obviously very pasionate about your belief in the christian god. That's fine. But please, when you are next studying the bible take a close
look at how it was written and also at the perspective it was written in. Also try and have several copies on hand, as you will most likely see that
there are many discrepencies in the text. (most likley caused by the heavy amount of editing that went on during the early part of the last century by
priests.) You will also note that the bible is not the answer book to everything. It is mearly a history of the Hebrew people and offers some good
advice.

You said: "RDO, choosing to believe that ancient society simply was amazed with what our satellites can track is not a direction I take. Experience
has taught me that despite casual explanation, matter (as well as awareness) does transcends all states perceived as apparent today."

I'm not sure I'm able to follow your reasoning. Prior to any level of scientific awareness, humanity had no choice but to assume deitetic
intervention in events not understood. Are you attempting to present that ancient cultures understood more of the assorted sciences than we
thought?

For "Truth"

You said: "You are 100% correct. this is what the devils ultimate plans are. to wipe out religion
and join the world in one false beleif under the aantichrist. he will demolish all current religions the false ones including the true one. he will
call jesus a liar and a fake."

You misunderstood my hypothesis based on an observation of societal patterns. There will not be any one event, initiated by any one person to cause a
societal disposal of religious dogma. Instead, it will be slow, gradual (sometimes painful) change over the next 70 years. Historians of the future
may look back and connect the fading away of religion to the growth of the digital culture, but it is more related to the maturity of the mass
societal organism.

RDO, since new, I'll give you sound advice and some early revalations brought by truth.

First, god talks to him. Second, Earth is 6,000 years old. Third, after awhile he started saying anyone who disagrees goes to hell. Fourth, he
says all technology is evil and man uses it to throw it in gods face. Fifth, Truth believes all the races and such were created when god destroyed
the Babylonian Tower and the people fell thousands of miles to Aussie land, Africa, Asia, and North/South America.

Want more, look for old posts and subjects. Other than that, truth is a punching bag we use to let of steam because we can all prove he is wrong,
and sometimes being right feels so good everything else goes away.

TC, we agree more than you know, usually when you are smacking truth down for his stupidity. Just because we don't share exactly same views on
religon doesn't mean we have to disagree on all things though.

Well Seti, you can think what you want.Me too, I can think what I want.
We have our owns point of views, and they are going in different directions.

I will not try to change your, coz it will not work. Like me, you can't change my opinion.

What I tryed to point in my previous post, was that everybody can be fullhate. We don't have to be religious to be fullhate. But I think that's what
you think.

For the Christians faith, I'll not speak about the priests or the monks, but only about JC. His message was clearly a peace & freedom message.

But yes, you right, the peoples who were in charge to gave His message, did terribles mistakes.I know it, everybody know it. But I'll not condemn all
the Christians,and their faith, only because some of them had bad behaviours there is too many centurys ago now.

With the muslim faith, I can't speak about it. Not coz I don't know it, but I don't want to do it. May be u can see with Estragon.

False hope ? Yes, sure. Like scientists told us that science will not hurt us, will not hurt nature,animals...It's not different, except may be I
never saw a religion who hurted nature. Humans & animals, yes, but nature, never.

If my memories are good, its not religions who gave us A/H bomb, napalm, chemical products who are destroying our environment and our lives.No,
religions are against all these things.Of course, they are against, but may be not for a good reason.I know what is it, " obscurantism ". But it's
another debate.

" Another thing, look at how some use religon. For their own personal gain. "

One more time, you right. But one more time, it's coming from a bad human behaviour. Not from the religion itself.

What can I say now ? May be you can try ( just try ) to learn the 2 faces of these religions, and not only the bad 1.

When you want to find something wrong, you'll find it, allways. Not just with religions, but with everything. Don't stay to your positions, like a
kamikaze who thinks it's better to die. All humans races can learn from each others, all religions can do it too. And atheists can learn from
theists, and vice versa. After all, we want to leave in peace, right ? If religious wars are stupids, starting a war agaisnt the religious peoples is
also stupid. It's just another form of war. But it's a war.

There are in fact aspects of awareness the ancients did excel at which we as of yet (as a society) have not grasped completely. Secret societies aside
(and there still are several) rarely allow one of there own to step forwards into public light.

Nonetheless an awakening (from my perspective) is in the process of occurring. This primarily because science has begun to investigate the very
specific role the "Observer" plays in respect to his surroundings. Mankind in actuality has many advantages this irrespective of efforts to maintain
the status quo.

My impression is that the gap between religion and science is moving inexorably towards a conclusion (One which will climax in the not to distant
future). I would tend to disagree RDO with the idea that religion is vestigial. Rather, that when understanding religion we are observing a
consciously directed capacity upon the Quantum scale (this being to do work).

My research into the ancient cultures has not revealed to me conclusions in parity with yours.

As to the observer's role in the universe, Schr–dinger's "The present situation in quantum mechanics" had a minor, yet important omission;
who is, where is, and when is the observer? It is easy for linear thinking beings to surmise that parallel events exist in tandem, when those beings
are the only observer via individual observation. What happens in the case of the society organic? Or, when such beings are not observing alone?

As for religion approaching vestigial status, I would present that your perspective may be tainted. It is exceedingly difficult for theists (of any
kind) to consider their beliefs may some day be considered unnecessary. If you remove yourself from your dogma, and examine the patterns of societal
evolution of the past 4,000 years, you will indeed see the cycle of deity worship nearing an end.

The last post in the thread identified as "Mojave" at "Aliens and UFO's" does discuss one such phenomenon. As well see attached link on soul
substance (my research does indicate that todate, this experiment has never been repeated. This in relation to, from the date it was conducted to the
present). Its apparent RDO that you are a colleague, the manner in which you present your argument has been taken into consideration and as a result
my responses will be in kind.

Dogma, yes that is an interesting word perhaps it is a human condition, an affliction which is the result of perceived limitation. Each of us innately
accept certain things as real. And while you do perceive my faith as dogmatic, might I point out that you have a faith of your own. My orientation
regards what is known, this in relation to a Universe who's circumference is 13 billion light years in diameter. A Universe in which it is apparent,
that an inherent interconnections exist. One as well where parallel Universes have been identified (observed experimentally).

From there, as far as the theoretical work it becomes even more complicated. RDO in our last conversation it was apparent that you adhered to
Newtonian principles (this as far as physics was concerned If I am incorrect please inform me). My impression is that if Sir Isaac Newton were alive
today, he would probably take very seriously the works of Sir Roger Penrose in relation to the observer (Shadows on the Mind).

My understanding of history entails, more than just what was presented as basic requirements to a BA in the subject (Ph.D. as well for that matter). I
am in fact descendant of Western Hemispheric American Indian (Toltec Nagual) as well as Japanese (Shadow Warrior). I do at present hold a BA in
psychology and an MA in Crisis Intervention. As far as my education, in relation to traditional ways this began at the age of 4 (The differences in
relation to history, from what those that claim victory, is considerable. This to an extent that history as it is often discussed is not actually a
valid interpretation).

Family history in relation to legend (human history) and does go back as far as 1 million years RDO (And beyond, in many respects I am not prepared to
discuss). RDO the human condition is very unique and from my understanding we can move mountains, this with the faith of a pea. The sum total of my
education bespeaks of a human nature, which ultimately can understand what we acknowledge as infinite beyond that though God is more.

RDO what I have to date presented is not easy to dismiss, as a result might I suggest that prior to responding you carefully review what has been
presented by me todate (this in regard to what is at this board but at the other in which I do present myself as "Traid").

Wintermorg there are many other books which discuss God from many different points of view (aspects). My advise is to study all of them (all the
different religions) and then draw a conclusion about how all these books define the one God.

Yes TC, when god said smash the babies he meant love them. And when he had bears kill the children, he meant for the teddy bears to love the kids and
give them hugs. But being bears they gave bear hugs and killed them.

Or, when the bible said smash babies, it meant smash babies. And when it said god sent bears to kill kids, it meant that. I mean, when Bible says
something good, that what it meant, but says something bad, it really meant this.

Well, does it mean what it said, or does it mean something else? Because I doubt that it only means what it says when it is good but means this
when it says something bad. I never heard when god said thou shall not kill, he meant thou shall not kill Christians. No, it means thou shall not
kill. But when it says happy shall he be, taketh thy little ones and daseth against the stones, he meant take them to your house and feed them.

Then, truth, you have no say in who understands a god. You think he talks to you in your head. Also, the Bible is human work, not a god. So
can't really use it for a defense or attack. For humans who believed in dragons and harpys and that rain was a gift from a god wrote it. I'm
sorry, you will never get over the fact that the people who wrote it thought world was flat and we were the center of the universe. Which, of course
both proven wrong. Then, these people believed in real magic. So when a guy did a magic trick it was a miracle. And these people thought the wheel
was biggest thing since sliced bread.(did they have sliced bread then?)

Of course, lightning was gods work. So was earthquakes, meteors, and locust swarms. Then, these people also believed in giants and titans and
ogers(orges?) and the Basilisk. Sorry, but I wouldn't follow a map written by them that went in a straight line let alone my religous beliefs.

Then, look at the people who follow it radically. Arabs blow themselves up to kill a couple jews. Indians slaughtered for being barbaric and
hethans(sp?) The Fued between Catholics and protestants in Ireland and/or England.(Ireland, only place I know where a potato famine wipes out a
fourth of the population)

Of course, then you get in U.S.A. the extremist blowing up hospitals and killing doctors because they do abortions which is against their religous
views. And the White Knights of Christianity lead lynches in older times against blacks and bombings against jews. And the KKK(WKC are a broken
branch of KKK, but not exactly like them) Lead lynches and burnings and commited murders and bombings in name of the true god, the Christian god.

People's arguements for how KKK not Christians just because they say they are, they don't act like Christians. But the Arabs who blow up Jews and
all that say they Islamic even though they aren't following Koran, but they still Islamic. So why they still Islamic when they don't follow the
Koran and yet the KKK aren't Christians because they aren't following the words of the Bible?

Originally posted by Truth god created a religion for the perfection of our souls.

God gave us a reason to have *faith*...*Religion* was created by men.

Originally posted by Truth It does not 'control" the masses...

Then why, in the past, have some of those in the Catholic-Religious heirarchy actually *admitted* that much of the revisions, omissions,
interpretations of the original scriptures (etc) have been done to retain more control over their "followers"? The churches seek to use *religion*
to control the hearts & minds of those who claim to have *faith*. Religions use their followers to affect governments, "convert" others to their own
narrow mind-set & control the very *thoughts* of everyone...Just like governments do, just like corporations do, etc.

Originally posted by Truth those who are outside of the truth are the disturbers of the world and are the ones being controlled by
"sin".

Those who are "outside of the truth" are those who are already controlled by the organizations & the people who hold power within them. God didn't
give the Pope his power...The Church itself & the *people* in the organization that gives him the power he has. Just like any government, corporation,
etc.

Originally posted by Truth Once again, i will point out the millions of miracles that have taken place inside of the catholic church to
the saints of the church.

And what miracles are those? Nothing more than the miracles that *other people* say (or written) have happened. The true miracles are the vastness of
God's Creation, the complexity & diversity that exists, the miracle of life itself. Those are the *true* miracles. Believing in anything less as
being meiracles is limiting your view to the *human factor* that religions are made of & maintain control over. In my observation, you've allowed
your religion to limit your spirit & faith to a *human viewpoint*...I won't allow anyone to do that to me, let alone any organized religion.

Originally posted by Truth numerous miracles i have personally witnessed of jesus.

"Personally"? Just how old *are* you anyway?

Originally posted by Truth I know he is the lord and he created one religion, not to control but to 'free"

If you'll remember, at that time even Jesus was a human being with all of a human's physical temptations & limitations. Even He was raised within a
society based mostly on fear & superstition. His spirit came from God, but Jesus was still living as a human, under the constant threat of of
suffering pain & physical death as any other human. It was Jesus' *spirit* that transcended those physical fears...And proved to us that it could be
done, no matter what the conseqeunces were; It's the same kind of spirit that moves a person to act & save lives when the easier (& safer) course
would be to remain still...The same kind of spirit that allows someone to sacrifice himself for the good of others. Yes, it was Jesus' *spirit* that
was special...That He could sacrifice Himself for the sake of the spirits of *everyone* who ever did, or ever *will* live a human life.

Originally posted by Truth believe what you will. just remember, "not" everything is a conspiracy.

No, not everything...But *most* things *are* conspiracies dreamed up by people who wield any kind of social-based power & influence.

Originally posted by Truth sin controls people not religion.

True, but *who's* definition of "sin" do you believe in? Personally, I use the definition of sin that God gave to us when He gave us the Ten
Commandments. Those were the only Laws that He has given to us *personally*...Every other definition of "sin" was created by *people* who had some
"religious" authority; The same kind of authority that *other people* let him have (Either because they believed that person's words or because
they'd talked to someone who believed his words). How many "sins" are actually described in Catholic scriptures? The number of "sins" they list
seems to be endless, but only *ten* sins were actually described by God Himself. The Church becomes more & more "controlling" & "manipulative"
with each "sin" beyond the first ten that God gave us.

Wintermorg, I would like to see all the sentences that you posted , but in their context.

I do an overload. I never saw these sentences before Wintermorg. I can't say that you are lying, I have to believe you about what you posted. If
it's written in the Bible, ok, it's written. But could you post everything please, and not only 2 or 3 statements. Manipulation is to easy.

Thanks.

PS : May be TC & MD will be able to help me. I don't like to say it, but this time, I'm " off ".

This thread is so intriguing. There have been many valid points made here ñ on both sides of the debate. I've always found that the subject of
religion brings out very strong 'emotional' responses in people.

Personally, I don't think that religion in itself is the culprit - it is those who use it to there own ends that need, ultimately, to be held
accountable for their (mis)deeds.

It is not ëIslamí that produces terrorists - it is 'humankind'.
It was not ëChristianityí that produced the Crusades - it was 'humankind'...and so on and so forth...Correct me if I'm wrong but people of passion
&/or power are forces to be reckoned with whatever the background cause that incites them or which they choose to manipulate.

It's ironic that the very principles held by the major religions emanate from a desire NOT to give way to the darker sides of human nature.
Yet, it appears to me that the very 'vices' that most major religions condemn are those that have prompted humankind to undertake such gross
atrocities in its name.

I think that at the core of all 'religion' there can be found a set of simple principles for 'living'. Furthermore - these principles are all
essentially the same ñ or at least similar - in nature. Strip away the doctrinal differences and cut through the added/(mis)interpreted dogma and you
should be able to uncover the initial precepts held by the originator of these concepts. Here, you will find, not a religious author ñ but usually
one who is spiritually ëenlightenedí.

Here, I believe, lies the key to the original truth. ëDivineí concepts designed for the spiritual nature of man cannot function solely in the
material world. And no person that is simply ëreligiousí in character can function on the spiritual plane. I fail to see how any amount of religious
practice & belief is valid unless it has first been spiritually perceived & awakened. I think that what many people consider to be their religion is
simply a set of indoctrinated social and cultural values : a (once spiritual) belief system that has been manipulated and perverted in order to
control.

There are many ëgood samaritansí with no designated religious affiliations but many more who profess religion and leave much to be desired in the way
of brotherly love, compassion, tolerance and understanding ñ the very virtues that most (if not all) major religions proclaim to be ërighteousí in
essence.

In the end, I believe that it is not the religion of a wo/man that becomes his/her saving grace, but the measure of the spirit of the being itself
that ultimately speaks the truth and makes the *vital* difference that so many have tried to convey to others down the ages.

The user "Truth" wrote (in infantile fashion) of who sin controls people. I would submit, "Truth" that you are wrong, and are being blinded by
issues related to the topic of this discussion: "Religion has only ever been a means to control the masses"

I normally refuse to discuss the merits of any given belief system, however, this discussion began as a contemplation of the effects of religion on
society. Understanding the grand equation of history and societal change has been my recent focus. And as such, recognize the overwhelming influence
of religion (and especially the Christian faith of the industrial revolution).

"Truth," your beliefs have blinded you to the fact that guilt controls you, not sin. Through your oddly twisted rendition of Christian Catholicism,
anything short of pure thoughts is a sin. Therefore, you sin a great deal and accumulate tremendous guilt. This guilt causes an overwhelming need for
repentance, and thus your reliance on the sacrament of confession. The cycle continues as you're unable to attained the level of purity self-imposed
by your beliefs.

And thus, a study in microcosm of one person provides societal data. While this person is theologically extreme, he exhibits all of the traits of a
puritanical religions society of 200 years ago.

Sin is by no means, a societal factor. Fear and guilt are the primary mechanisms of theologic control. Guilt over impurity, fear of damnation.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.